Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Surprisingly, we got only one question for our 2-hour exam and I think nobody solved it. Here is the problem:

Assuming that $K$ is a field, show that $S$ is stable under addition, multiplication and division, where $S$ is defined as follow: $$S=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{x_i}^2 \mid n\in \Bbb N ,\ x_i\in K\right\}.$$

share|cite|improve this question
2  
@Servaes it is likely meant that if $x,y\in S$ and $y\neq0$ then $xy^{-1}\in S$. Since $S$ is stable under multiplication and $1\in S$ this is equivalent to $y^{-1}\in S$ whenever $y\in S, y\neq0$. – s.harp 22 hours ago
3  
Addition: Trivial. Any sum of two finite sums of squares is a finite sum of squares. Multiplication: Trivial. Any product of two squares is a square and the distributive property shows that a product of two finite sums has finitely many terms. – Michael Burr 22 hours ago
1  
I downvoted because the question and subsequent comment show no effort whatsoever. – Servaes 22 hours ago
1  
@Servaes my efforts are irrelevants , I still think about the problem .. when I got something I will post it don't worry – Seginus 22 hours ago
1  
I disagree. See also this meta post and its top voted answer, and the answers' top voted comment. But feel free to disagree, it's just a downvote. – Servaes 22 hours ago
up vote 26 down vote accepted

Addition: Trivial. Any sum of two finite sums of squares is a finite sum of squares.

Multiplication: Trivial. Any product of two squares is a square and the distributive property shows that a product of two finite sums has finitely many terms.

Division: Suppose that $a=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2$ is not zero. We would like to show that $a^{-1}\in S$ (using s.harp's comment). If $n=1$, then the inverse of $a$ is trivial. The first interesting case is when $n=2$ Suppose that $a=x_1^2+x_2^2$.

Now, $$ \frac{1}{x_1^2+x_2^2}=\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{(x_1^2+x_2^2)^2}=\left(\frac{x_1}{x_1^2+x_2^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{x_2}{x_1^2+x_2^2}\right)^2 $$ The denominators are OK because this is a field. All higher $n$'s are generalizations of this case.

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Very nice observation! – Open Ball 21 hours ago
    
We posted at the same time. +1 – Rene Schipperus 21 hours ago
    
how can we generalise this ? – Seginus 15 hours ago
    
@Seginus The obvious generalization where you replace the square by any other power should also work. For other generalizations, perhaps it would be good to open a new question so that it gets more attention. – Michael Burr 15 hours ago
    
@Seginus One way to start generalizing is to write the proof more simply - see my answer. – Bill Dubuque 13 hours ago

$$\frac{1}{x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2}=\frac{x_1^2}{(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)^2}+\frac{x_2^2}{(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)^2}+\frac{x_3^2}{(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)^2}$$

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
Posting at the same time +1 – Michael Burr 21 hours ago

$\begin{align}{\bf Hint} \ \ a\neq 0\ \Rightarrow&\ \ \color{#c00}{a^{\large -2}} =\, (a^{\large -1})^{\large 2} \in S\ \ \text{by $\,S\,$ contains all squares}\\ {\rm so}\ \ \ a\in S\ \Rightarrow&\ \ a^{\large -1} =\, a\cdot \color{#c00}{a^{\large-2}}\in S\ \ \text{by $\,S\,$ is closed under multipication} \end{align}$

Remark $ $ The essence can be presented more simply in additive form, using only integers.

Theorem $\ $ If $\,S\,$ is a set of integers containing all even integers,
then $S$ is closed under subtraction $\iff S$ is closed under addition.

Proof $\ $ Suppose $\,a,b\in S.\,$ If $\,S\,$ is closed under addition then $\,a+b+2(-b) = a-b\in S\,$ since by hypothesis the even integer $\,2(-b)\in S.\,$ Conversely if $\,S\,$ is closed under subtraction then $\,a-(0-b) = a+b\in S\,$ since by hypothesis the even integer $\,0\in S.$

Readers familiar with groups and monoids can rephrase the above in that language.

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
I found this question 9 hours late (from the Hot List). but I'll add this answer anyhow since I think it clarifies closure under inverses, hence closure under division (the only tricky part). – Bill Dubuque 12 hours ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.